My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2004_1025
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2004
>
CC_Minutes_2004_1025
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:32:12 AM
Creation date
2/16/2006 10:45:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
10/25/2004
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />City Council Regular Meeting -10/25/04 <br />Minutes - Page 14 <br /> <br />Urban Area-wide Review (AUAR) was still valid and applicable <br />to the project area. Mayor Klausing advised that the City <br />Attorney had advised the City Council to delay consideration of <br />the application before it as was originally proposed on tonight's <br />agenda, pending a determination by the EQB as to whether: <br />1) The petition for an environmental assessment was <br />dismissed <br />2) A negative declaration has been issued on the need for an <br />environmental impact statement; <br />3) The environmental impact statement has been determined <br />adequate; or <br />4) A variance has been granted from making an <br />environmental impact statement by the EQB. <br /> <br />City Attorney Scott Anderson further detailed the petItIon <br />process; Council options and authority; required time lines; and <br />referenced applicable statutes related to environmental policy; a <br />copy of which had been provided to the City Council and <br />available at the meeting for the public. Mr. Anderson advised <br />that the City had not received a copy of the petition to-date, only <br />notification that a petition had been filed. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson reviewed the purpose for the review in <br />determining if a potential existed for significant environmental <br />impacts due to a proposed project, to allow all parties at the <br />outset to be aware of those impacts, and potential mitigation of <br />alleviation of those impacts. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson reviewed the process of the petition <br />process and review by the EQB, noting the EQB received the <br />petition and made a determination within five business days as to <br />their findings if the petition was in proper form and which <br />"Responsible Governmental Unit" (RGU) would receive the <br />petition; and advise the RGU of their responsibilities for making <br />a determination, based on environmental standards and rules, as <br />to the need for an EA W. Mr. Anderson further advised that the <br />RGU had fifteen days from the date of the receipt of the petition <br />to decide on the need for an EA W; and if that RGU meet only on <br />a periodic basis, the time period could be extended by the RGU <br />for a one-time only, additional 15 days. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.